Did he retract all the lies from his previous videos?I'm not sure whether this is new or not, but this interview with Trent Palmer's attorney was posted on YouTube today.
I haven't seen previous interviews with the attorney, so I don't know.Did he retract all the lies from his previous videos?
It went to,”big boy appellate court.” Oral argument was about two weeks ago.think/hope he'll have more traction now that it's going to big boy, real appellate court
Admin law judges are BS. They are effectively employees of the prosecuting agency. Contesting adverse action by the government should only be tried in real courts.
Might or might not help. “Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law. Most of the questions in this case are legal, not factual. The basic facts - Palmer, in making an inspection pass, passed within x feet of a house, structures, and people on an adjoining property - are not really in dispute....with juries.
It’s the second case. If someone wants to see what I meant by “not interested,” listen to the first one for comparison.For those who want to hear the oral arguments:Starts just before minute 29 on the video.
Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.Might or might not help. “Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law. Most of the questions in this case are legal, not factual. The basic facts - Palmer, in making an inspection pass, passed within x feet of a house, structures, and people on an adjoining property - are not really in dispute.
“Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law.
Everyone, including the FAA, agrees that this is legal. All practice approaches are exceptions to 91.119 as long as they are practice approaches to a landing spot that is reasonable under the circumstances and the approach and departure procedures themselves are reasonable.Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
Yeah, that's the theory. But a jury member can and will make a decision based on whatever he likes, including whether he considers the law to be correct or just doesn't like the judge's hair style, and no power on earth can prevent that nor force the juror to disclose his reasoning if he chooses not to.
Juries are the ultimate check on a court's power. Do juries get it wrong? Of course. But that's often the result of lawyers and judges not doing their jobs well enough.
Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
Many years ago I attended an event where an FAA official spoke about the Bob Hoover affair and how the FAA had learned its lesson and was now a kinder and gentler safety partner with General Aviation. After her prepared dissertation, she then opened the floor to questions and quickly reverted to the stereotypical sky cop whose job was to prosecute every infraction actual or perceived. It was truly amazing how fast she disabused us of the notion that the FAA had changed its attitude toward pilots as a result of the Bob Hoover affair. In the intervening years I've come across a wide range of FAA officials, some pretty good guys and some not so. I treat all interactions with them cautiously as you never know which kind you're dealinng with.So much for the kinder gentler FAA that only cares about safety.
Maybe there's more to the story, but it sounds pretty simple.
* addition *
I never watched his stuff, after a couple minutes previewing some vids, I suspect his suspension is not just due to one event as he claims. I saw several things that looked potentionally questionable just in a few minutes of browsing.
I suspect you are right, but is there any actual evidence of that?Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.
Yes. The NTSB order on his appeal of the ALJ's ruling is linked in this thread.I suspect you are right, but is there any actual evidence of that?
There is nothing in the case or precedent that says that, only a chamber of horrors argument.Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
So you think a jury would be fine with one of those dangerous little airplanes flying through a residential backyard. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Jury nullification definitely exists, but it’s exceedingly rare and I doubt they’d do in on a case like this.Yeah, that's the theory. But a jury member can and will make a decision based on whatever he likes, including whether he considers the law to be correct or just doesn't like the judge's hair style, and no power on earth can prevent that nor force the juror to disclose his reasoning if he chooses not to.
Juries are the ultimate check on a court's power. Do juries get it wrong? Of course. But that's often the result of lawyers and judges not doing their jobs well enough.
The cynic in me says it makes good YouTube content and clicks=cash.Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
i won’t speculate on either Palmer or his lawyer’s (who is well-respected in the aviation legal community) motivations. As much of the discussion shows, although I’m cynical about it, some really do see the case as about protecting inspection passes, practice approaches, etc. And there are broader -and repetitive - administrative law and NTSB process issues which the procedural history of the case raises.Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
And there are broader -and repetitive - administrative law and NTSB process issues which the procedural history of the case raises.
It wasn't even six months. The FAA wanted 120 days, which the ALJ reduced to 60. If YouTuber had taken the L, rather than appealing, it wouldn't have been increased back to 120 days.Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.There is zero chance that anyone is getting violated for flying a published approach. Maybe if they're flying it into a clearly unsuitable airport- like doing a practice approach into an airport with a 2000 foot runway is fine in a C152 but probably not in an A380.
Unbelievable! Except it's the FAA so it's totally believable.That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
I could give you a name and more, but I doubt he wants that done... I taught his son and my CFI signature is in his logbook.Unbelievable! Except it's the FAA so it's totally believable.
Not needed. Have no doubt the FAA is full of Barney Fife types.I could give you a name and more, but I doubt he wants that done... I taught his son and my CFI signature is in his logbook.
Speaking as a layman, Palmer's lawyer sounds respectable and sincere to me.i won’t speculate on either Palmer or his lawyer’s (who is well-respected in the aviation legal community) motivations. As much of the discussion shows, although I’m cynical about it, some really do see the case as about protecting inspection passes, practice approaches, etc. And there are broader -and repetitive - administrative law and NTSB process issues which the procedural history of the case raises.
As Trent Palmer's lawyer said, it's the "because I said so" standard.That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
cops on the beat overreaching their authority is a historical truth, although I suspect there is much more to the story. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
Everyone, including the FAA, agrees that this is legal. All practice approaches are exceptions to 91.119 as long as they are practice approaches to a landing spot that is reasonable under the circumstances and the approach and departure procedures themselves are reasonable.
There is zero chance that anyone is getting violated for flying a published approach. Maybe if they're flying it into a clearly unsuitable airport- like doing a practice approach into an airport with a 2000 foot runway is fine in a C152 but probably not in an A380.
In a civil case, the judge can make a judgment as a matter of law- essentially finding that no reasonable jury would decide otherwise. This can happen even after the jury has made a verdict.
Juries are only an ultimate check in criminal cases, since an acquittal by jury can not be set aside, except probably in the case of a bribed jury or something.
Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.
There is nothing in the case or precedent that says that, only a chamber of horrors argument.
You should read the NTSB order. The facts are not as he claims. But if this concerns you, there's a simple solution: plan to do touch-and-goes on your practice approaches.We are talking facts and what is in the CFRs.
The FACTS are, every time I fly an approach and do not land, I do the exact same thing that Palmer did in regards to minimum safe distances. And I don't see anything in 91.119 that excepts practice approaches. Please point it out to me in the regulations.
I didn’t realize you flew instrument approaches at low altitude through people’s backyards into a place that’s not an airport.We are talking facts and what is in the CFRs.
The FACTS are, every time I fly an approach and do not land, I do the exact same thing that Palmer did in regards to minimum safe distances. And I don't see anything in 91.119 that excepts practice approaches. Please point it out to me in the regulations.
Nor the body of legal precedent, interpretation, and official guidance on the issue. Never confuse a political position with reality. It only confuses people.You should read the NTSB order. The facts are not as he claims. But if this concerns you, there's a simple solution: plan to do touch-and-goes on your practice approaches.
I don't recall seeing backyards listed in in 91.119. I have, however flown over "any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft" and "closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" while not landing and flying approaches.I didn’t realize you flew instrument approaches at low altitude through people’s backyards into a place that’s not an airport.
Funny that a guy who put together a logging chart based largely on interpretation rejects legal and interpretive precedent regarding “necessary for takeoff and landing” as not directly stated in the regulations. I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.I don't recall seeing backyards listed in in 91.119. I have, however flown over "any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft" and "closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" while not landing and flying approaches.